The definitive guide to the 2nd Amendment

[danielpalos]

only if you are well regulated and necessary to the security of a free State.

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people shall not be infringed, unless necessary to the security of a free state."
You added that part, didn't you. Did you make that up yourself?


A well-regulated militia _____ _________ ___ ______ ________ __ _ _____ _______, ___ _____ of the people __ ____ ___ ____ ____ shall not be infringed.

Fill in the blanks, dan.

if you are merely engaged natural rights, you are subject to the Police power.

well regulated militia are exempt and may not be Infringed, when being Necessary.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

only if you are well regulated and necessary to the security of a free State.

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people shall not be infringed, unless necessary to the security of a free state."
You added that part, didn't you. Did you make that up yourself?


A well-regulated militia _____ _________ ___ ______ ________ __ _ _____ _______, ___ _____ of the people __ ____ ___ ____ ____ shall not be infringed.

Fill in the blanks, dan.

if you are merely engaged natural rights, you are subject to the Police power.

well regulated militia are exempt and may not be Infringed, when being Necessary.

Quit adding words that are not there, dan.

 

[danielpalos]

Well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,....

why so much emphasis, if it means, nothing.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

why so much emphasis, if it means, nothing

Again, your use of a comma makes your statement confusing.

Do you mean why so much emphasis on the phrase "A well-regulated militia being necessary..." if it means nothing?

We have already provided the answer multiple times on multiple threads. You simply refused to hear it, or you do not have a proper grasp on the English language.

Here is the latest explanation on the reason for stating "A well-regulated militia...":

Massachusetts: This Is The Nation’s Toughest Gun Law

See post #949

 

[hadit]

So, Sam Adams intended that arms are socialized by his statement?

You have GOT to be kidding me.

You are nothing more than a fucking troll.

The subject of Arms is declared socialized, every time the right is too dumb to understand our Second Amendment.

So it doesn't mean what it says. It means what you want it to mean.

Our Constitution clearly states Congress authority to call out the militia.

It also clearly states the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed..

so what; well regulated militia of the People, are still People.

The People are more than the militia.

 

[danielpalos]

why so much emphasis, if it means, nothing

Again, your use of a comma makes your statement confusing.

Do you mean why so much emphasis on the phrase "A well-regulated militia being necessary..." if it means nothing?

We have already provided the answer multiple times on multiple threads. You simply refused to hear it, or you do not have a proper grasp on the English language.

Here is the latest explanation on the reason for stating "A well-regulated militia...":

Massachusetts: This Is The Nation’s Toughest Gun Law

See post #949

A well regulated militia being Necessary to the security of a free State; why is the right wing whining about taxes for our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror?

 

[danielpalos]

The subject of Arms is declared socialized, every time the right is too dumb to understand our Second Amendment.

So it doesn't mean what it says. It means what you want it to mean.

Our Constitution clearly states Congress authority to call out the militia.

It also clearly states the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed..

so what; well regulated militia of the People, are still People.

The People are more than the militia.

yet, only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, are declared Necessary.

 

[Pop23]

The subject of Arms is declared socialized, every time the right is too dumb to understand our Second Amendment.

So it doesn't mean what it says. It means what you want it to mean.

Our Constitution clearly states Congress authority to call out the militia.

It also clearly states the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed..

so what; well regulated militia of the People, are still People.

The People are more than the militia.

Not to a communist

 

[hadit]

So it doesn't mean what it says. It means what you want it to mean.

Our Constitution clearly states Congress authority to call out the militia.

It also clearly states the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed..

so what; well regulated militia of the People, are still People.

The People are more than the militia.

yet, only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, are declared Necessary.

No, the right of the people to bear arms is declared necessary.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Constitution clearly states Congress authority to call out the militia.

It also clearly states the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed..

so what; well regulated militia of the People, are still People.

The People are more than the militia.

yet, only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, are declared Necessary.

No, the right of the people to bear arms is declared necessary.

no, it isn't. That which is Necessary to the security a free State, is declared to be, well regulated militia.

 

[hadit]

It also clearly states the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed..

so what; well regulated militia of the People, are still People.

The People are more than the militia.

yet, only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, are declared Necessary.

No, the right of the people to bear arms is declared necessary.

no, it isn't. That which is Necessary to the security a free State, is declared to be, well regulated militia.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. The right of the People to bear arms, NOT that of the militia, shall not be infringed. That's the bottom line and which you refuse to acknowledge.

 

[danielpalos]

so what; well regulated militia of the People, are still People.

The People are more than the militia.

yet, only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, are declared Necessary.

No, the right of the people to bear arms is declared necessary.

no, it isn't. That which is Necessary to the security a free State, is declared to be, well regulated militia.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. The right of the People to bear arms, NOT that of the militia, shall not be infringed. That's the bottom line and which you refuse to acknowledge.

No, they didn't. Paragraph (2) of DC v Heller applies to the unorganized militia. Well regulated militia are exempted when being Necessary to the security of a free State.

 

[there4eyeM]

That the 'right' to bear arms may be what is guaranteed, yet there is nothing in such a provision to exclude regulation of what arms are available.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Paragraph (2) of DC v Heller applies to the unorganized militia.

This paragraph below?

"The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."

That's paragraph 2. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

"A high-powered machine gun, being necessary for the security of freedom, the right of felons to keep and bear machine guns shall not be infringed."

Did I read that right?

 

[danielpalos]

Paragraph (2) of DC v Heller applies to the unorganized militia.

This paragraph below?

"The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."

That's paragraph 2. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Nothing but fallacy, is all the right wing has; even promiscuous women, can be more conservative.

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Paragraph (2) of DC v Heller applies to the unorganized militia.

This paragraph below?

"The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."

That's paragraph 2. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Nothing but fallacy, is all the right wing has; even promiscuous women, can be more conservative.

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

That was about States having the right to regulate firearms.

I am talking about Congress, not the states.

And, besides, Scalia was wrong and stupid.

It clearly states:

"A well-concealed handgun, being necessary for the security of a free person, the right of any person to conceal a handgun shall not be infringed."

 

[danielpalos]

Paragraph (2) of DC v Heller applies to the unorganized militia.

This paragraph below?

"The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."

That's paragraph 2. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Nothing but fallacy, is all the right wing has; even promiscuous women, can be more conservative.

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

That was about States having the right to regulate firearms.

I am talking about Congress, not the states.

And, besides, Scalia was wrong and stupid.

It clearly states:

"A well-concealed handgun, being necessary for the security of a free person, the right of any person to conceal a handgun shall not be infringed."

Our Second Amendment clearly states what is Necessary to the security of our free States and Union; it is not, the unorganized militia.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That the 'right' to bear arms may be what is guaranteed, yet there is nothing in such a provision to exclude regulation of what arms are available.

Except the word "infringed", and the fact that "regulating" what arms can be owned is an infringement.

But, you know, aside from the English vocabulary and common logic, there's nothing there to stop you from controlling people's lives. Sure.

 

[danielpalos]

That the 'right' to bear arms may be what is guaranteed, yet there is nothing in such a provision to exclude regulation of what arms are available.

Except the word "infringed", and the fact that "regulating" what arms can be owned is an infringement.

But, you know, aside from the English vocabulary and common logic, there's nothing there to stop you from controlling people's lives. Sure.

Both terms, the militia and the people are plural; thus, no attainders upon the People concerning Arms.